|
Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key u: msg#00272ietf.x509
Eric, Eric Murray wrote: <snip> > There'a already a huge plethora of extensions, a few more key > usage bits that are unambiguous wouldn't hurt anything. I disagree. This would hurt a number of implementor's who are implementing the draft standard. X.509 should remain as stable as possible. Dave S. |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs.permanent key usage: 00272, Simonetti David |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00272, Eric Murray |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usagei: 00272, Eric Murray |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Authentication vs. binding signature, and ephemeral vs. permanent key usage: 00272, Eric Murray |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |